There is NO comparison between Fisher and Parker! Parker has been the starting PG for the Spurs on their last 2 championships at such a young age and he produced alot for them. He had to be the second star on the championship team of 3 years ago!

When Parker got his first ring 3 years ago he was like an allstar in the playoffs for the spurs. The spurs had only Tim Duncan as their superstar and David Robinson wasn't even averaging double figure points and was not a star as such anymore!

Fisher had Shaq in his prime and Kobe being his superstar self! Fisher did well, but it was Horry's clutch plays and guys like Ron Harper thatcontributed much to the success of the Lakers championships. Fisher was a good role player but nothing like a star.

How can you say Horry's clutch shots and Ron Harper's role playing mattered more than Derek Fisher? He did both of those things at the same time! He knew Kobe and Shaq were in the limelight, but he continued to play extremely well, solid, and consistent anyway! He was a great player to have on those teams and they wouldn't have gotten one ring without him (yes, you can quote me on that).

Tony Parker was just as big a deal in San Antonio as Derek Fisher was in Los Angeles. There's no way you can continue to discount Fisher's accomplishments just because you're pissed at his contract. That's wrong.

Horry's clutch shots mattered more than Derek Fisher. In fact, they mattered more than Kobe, Shaq, Duncan, Ginobili and any other player on those teams. They're the only reason for several wins of the Lakers, Spurs and Rockets in the playoffs.

Oh, I'm not saying Horry's shots weren't worth a ton to his team... I'm just saying that Fisher hit more key shots for the Lakers than Horry did... but, no question, Horry has more career clutch shots than Fisher. Its just that during their tenure as Lakers, Fisher came up big in more games. Horry did, too, but not as often for LA.

Player32 wrote:I'm just saying that Fisher hit more key shots for the Lakers than Horry did...

Not sure about that, but I'm not feeling like looking each and every clutch shot these two had in tinsel town. They were/are both great clutch perfomers (though I liked Horry better, but that's just my opinion).

NO WAY would the Lakers not have one even one championship without Fisher! - That is just ludicrous Player32!

You like Fisher, that's fine, Fisher is a solid player, that's fine but in no way was he the difference in the Lakers winning 3 championships and not winning any! When Ron Harper was there Fisher didn't even start. He played quite well but the Lakers would have won without him!

migya wrote:NO WAY would the Lakers not have one even one championship without Fisher! - That is just ludicrous Player32!

You like Fisher, that's fine, Fisher is a solid player, that's fine but in no way was he the difference in the Lakers winning 3 championships and not winning any! When Ron Harper was there Fisher didn't even start. He played quite well but the Lakers would have won without him!

Right. Ron Harper. I wouldn't have even called him a factor because any other player on the bench could have done what he did for them.

How ludacrous is it really? I mean, Kobe and Shaq didn't win rings together until Phil Jackson arrived. Still, Phil's offense revolved around 3 things; a scoring guard who can shoot, a forward who can handle the ball, and a big man with post moves. Seeing as Robert Horry could only play limited minutes and Horace Grant is way too rough, Kobe Bryant had to be the "forward" who could handle the ball. Shaq was obviously what the triangle ran through, but the shooter on the outside was Derek Fisher! Without Fisher's continually accurate 3-shot, the Lakers would never have gotten so many points (and, God knows, they weren't the best defensive team in the league). As an added bonus, Fisher could handle the ball and play aggressive defense. The triangle offense revolved around Shaq, Kobe, and Derek Fisher. And, like a triangle, not one side mattered more than the other. Sure, Shaq & Kobe are better players than Derek Fisher, but no one else on that team could continually shoot 40% from the arc like Derek could. Not even the trade for Glen Rice got them that kind of a shooter. In the end, they were better off with Derek Fisher shooting from the outside. He was a very vital part of the Lakers winning. To say that they would have won without him sounds ludacrous to me.